[Reader-list] Sethusamudram: Can Sri Lanka Speak? : TT Sreekumar

[Anivar Aravind]

Sreekumar argues for the need for taking a ‘south asian’ perspective 
discarding the indo-centric approach & Economic Nationalism.

Anivar

Sethusamudram: Can Sri Lanka Speak?

By Dr. T T Sreekumar

25 September, 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/sreekumar250907.htm

One of the important issues in the Sethusamudram debates is the near 
total obliteration of the Sri Lankan perspective(s) by the Indian Media. 
Understanding the Sri Lankan perspective(s) is critical for two reasons. 
First, it is more than evident that the canal will be in India but its 
impacts would cross Indian territories with the suspended sediments and 
dredged toxins affecting the bio-domains surrounding Sri Lanka. Second, 
given the shared concerns of food security, arms race, unresolved 
national struggles (Elam, Kashmir etc.) and continuing sectarian social 
conflicts in the region, an India-centric view on bilateral and 
multilateral issues such as defence, environment, foreign policy and 
economic growth is politically inadequate.

To develop and uphold a larger South Asian perspective on the 
Sethusamudram project appears to be as critical as the need for such a 
position on the India-US nuclear deal. Both issues have some striking 
similarities. The Indo-US 123 deal would culminate in an increased 
mutual distrust between Pakistan and India, inducing unprecedented 
escalation of defence expenditures in both countries in particular and 
South Asia in general resulting in further State withdrawal from public 
investments and infrastructure projects leading to increased rural 
unemployment, marginalization and pushing food insecurity along 
threatening boarders. Sethusamudram project has also been similar in its 
impacts given the strategic, environmental and economic import of its 
long term impacts for the region. It threatens the livelihood of 
millions of people and make whole of South India and Sri Lanka 
vulnerable to natural calamities in unimaginable proportions comparable 
to that of the sublime terror unleashed by Tsunami waves.

The discourses on the Sethusamudram project in India have tended largely 
to ignore the various views and concerns raised by civil society and 
media in Sri Lanka. The Indian debates are cantered on an astonishing 
ignorance and/or indifference about the decade long deliberations on the 
topic by social, environmental and human rights movements, scientists, 
writers, intellectuals, artists and fisher communities in Sri Lanka. The 
movement against Sethusamudram project in Sri Lanka has a history that 
offers lessons on understanding the potentials and limitations of 
democratic struggles for right to livelihood in South Asia while 
pointing to the deepening crevasses between State and civil society in 
almost every nation and nationality in the subcontinent. The concern 
about the regional implications of the Indo-US deal is also peripheral 
to Indian media.

It is important to note that the Sri Lankan State appears to have given 
its nod to the project against the wishes of its people. The ‘official’ 
position has emerged in the last few years following bilateral 
discussions, which in many ways resembles Indo-US Nuclear negotiations. 
The Sri Lankan government, even as late as 2005 has been demanding the 
establishment of a standing joint mechanism for exchange of information. 
It wanted to set up a common data base on the hydrodynamic modelling, 
environmental measures and impact on fisheries resources, fisheries 
dependent communities and measures to cope with navigational 
emergencies. The discussions, however, has not led to the achievement of 
the level of transparency in the implementation of the project as these 
concerns still remain unsettled. The degree of coercion India might have 
employed to extract a forced consensus from the Sri Lankan State as US 
has been trying with Indian State in the 123 deal somehow does not 
figure prominently in Indian discussions.

Political parties including those preach internationalism have been 
guided primarily by parochialism and self serving patriotism typified in 
their differential positions on the issues of Sethusamudram and 123 
Deal. Reports on the Indian side showing a resolute refusal to address 
the concerns raised by the various Sri Lankan delegations that visited 
India during the negotiations have been suppressed. The fact that every 
single evidence, challenging the economic and environmental viability of 
the project, has been dismissed by the Indian side and that it has not 
been subjected to the media criticism it deserves can be seen as an 
indication of the media complacence (if not compliance) in the hegemonic 
overdrive that characterizes India’s foreign policy in the region. It is 
difficult to dismiss as a coincidence that the issues of ‘sea tigers’ 
and Katchatheevu had always figured prominently in the mainstream 
media’s imaginative narratives as well as in affirmative technocratic 
discourses on Sethusamudram project in India.

The two meta-narratives in India, the one which wants everyone to view 
the issue primarily from a national security and/or economic angle and 
the Hindutwa view which wants to highlight the mythological importance 
of the Ramsethu as a cause and occasion for consolidating its waning 
influence have received the maximum attention in the Indian debate. 
Communalization and ‘nationalization’ of the issue by BJP led NDA and 
Congress led UPA–CPM alliance respectively has resulted in a highly 
uneven debate on the issue.

The fact is by now clear to observers that Hinduthwa nationalism would 
morph into an opportunistic economic nationalism while in power and 
would divorce it while in opposition. This is just one of the 
interesting crude empirics of fascism, an analysis of which does not 
necessarily hinge on its inevitable iteration. Hence invoking the 
genealogy of the project to NDA period to rebuff BJP’s current 
opposition to the project is only self serving for the ruling UPA-CPM 
alliance. Fortunately for the ruling alliance, no archives of past CPM 
position on the NDA initiative appear to be available. Against the 
grain, I want to believe that the old leadership of that party might 
have wanted to oppose it on internationalist and environmental principles.

Civil society would not necessarily want (or not want) BJP’s support in 
this struggle. But it certainly would want to oppose the UPA-CPM 
alliance’s rather hegemonic opportunism as reflected in their 
differential approach to US Nuclear deal and Sethusamudram project and 
an aggressive divisive politics of communalization unleashed by the NDA. 
Indian media taking a broader South Asian perspective in this regard 
would provide a critical support for the Sri Lankan movement against 
Sethusamudram canal and deeply challenge the collective hallucinations 
of the consolidated ‘secular’ Indian response.

Dr. T T Sreekumar is Assistant Professor of Communication & New Media 
Programme at National University of Singapore E-mail: 
sreekumar at nus.edu.sg , sreekumartt at gmail.com